4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Kraków.
5.  On 10 June 1997 the Mayor of the City of Kraków (Prezydent Miasta Krakowa) issued a building permit to the applicant's neighbour. The applicant appealed, submitting that, according to the construction project, the proposed building would encroach on her land. She also requested that the construction work be stopped.
6.  On 22 August 1997 the Kraków City Office instituted administrative demarcation proceedings at the applicant's request in order to establish a boundary between the two properties.
7.  On 28 July 1997 the Governor of the Kraków Region (Wojewoda Krakowski) upheld the decision of 10 June 1997. On 28 August 1997 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.
8.  On 5 September 1997 the Construction Supervision Department of the Kraków City Office (Wydział Nadzoru Budowlanego Miasta Krakowa) conducted an inspection on the applicant's neighbour's building site.
9.  On 12 December 1997 the administrative demarcation proceedings were discontinued by the Kraków City Office as the parties had not reached a settlement as to the boundary in dispute.
10.  On 2 April 1998 an inspection on the applicant's neighbour's building site was again conducted by the Construction Supervision Department of the Kraków City Office.
11.  On 3 April 1998 the applicant's neighbour was summoned to appear at the Kraków City Office on 9 or 14 April 1998. The applicant's neighbour failed to appear on the dates indicated. He eventually appeared at the Kraków City Office on 4 May 1998.
12.  On 28 April 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of 10 June 1997 and 28 July 1997 as it found that the building permit had been issued contrary to the law and that it was necessary to establish the disputed boundary before deciding on whether to grant a permit.
13.  On 5 March 1998 the applicant informed the Kraków Regional Office (Urząd Wojewódzki w Krakowie) that, in spite of the Supreme Administrative Court judgment of 28 April 1998, the construction work was being carried out on the disputed land.
14.  On 28 May 1998 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kraków Regional Office, claiming that no steps had been taken by the authorities to prevent the construction work being carried out by her neighbour.
15.  On 30 July 1998 the Kraków Regional Office informed the applicant that it had not been obliged to stop the construction work prior to the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment. The applicant was also informed that following the judgment, failure by her neighbour to comply with it would result in the Kraków City Office being obliged to take appropriate measures.
16.  On 2 September 1998 the Kraków City Office decided to stay the proceedings concerning the applicant's neighbour's construction work in view of the fact that the issue of the boundary between the lands had not yet been settled.
17.  The proceedings concerning the suspension of the construction work are still pending.
18.  On 4 October 2002 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint, under section 17 of the Supreme Administrative Court Act of 11 May 1995, about inactivity on the part of administrative organs. She submitted that, in spite of the Supreme Administrative Court judgment, the Kraków Regional Office had taken no steps to halt the construction work on the disputed land.
19.  On 2 June 2004 the Kraków Regional Administrative Court (which had taken over the jurisdiction of the Supreme Administrative Court) rejected the complaint as it found that the applicant had not exhausted relevant remedies, of which she should have availed herself prior to lodging the complaint (namely, she had not lodged a complaint with the competent minister).
20.  On 14 September 2004 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court against this decision.
21.  On 23 March 2005 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about breaches of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”), in respect of the proceedings instituted on 4 October 2002.
22.  On 6 April 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. In reasoned grounds it stated that the length of the proceedings had been a consequence of the court's heavy workload and that the State was not responsible for that delay. It stated as follows:
“(...) the order of examination of cases is established according to the date on which the application is lodged with the court. The number of cases lodged with the court explains why a plaintiff has to wait for the first hearing. (...). Having regard to the above, the Supreme Administrative Court considers that in these circumstances any excessive length of the proceedings cannot be attributed to the State.”
23.  On 19 May 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal against the Kraków Regional Administrative Court's decision of 2 June 2004.